Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest

mediaite.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 471 posts

Re: Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest

#441

Post by oefnak »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #438
4h53n wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? We could let the free market come up with competing solutions and regulate where necessary.

1. Because it's a violation of other people's rights to control their own private property. It's predicated on using the threat of imprisonment against people acting peacefully, which infringes upon human rights. 2. Because it's lazy and lacking credibility: it's a claim to being privy to 'the correct path for society' , without showing the ability to create something of value. The state could still tap market forces…

1. A company is not a person.

Also, the company did not have to go to jail, it got a fine.

Re: Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest

#442

Post by oefnak »

charrondev wrote: post #427
lm28469 wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're encouraging government coercion of action. And you're advocating for foreign private companies to have more rights than the democratically elected governments of the countries they operate in. Last time I checked laws still come from countries, not from Google. The world isn't America's private companies playground

> And you're advocating for foreign private companies to have more rights than the democratically elected governments of the countries they operate in. The biggest difference generally between a private enterprise (foreign or domestic) and a democratically elected government is that participation with the government and its rules are: - compulsory - enforced by physical violence If I disagree with googles rules I can…

If you don't agree with the laws, emigrate! It's probably easier than completely avoiding Google.

Re: Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest

#443

Post by CryptoPunk »

oefnak wrote: post #441
CryptoPunk wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Because it's a violation of other people's rights to control their own private property. It's predicated on using the threat of imprisonment against people acting peacefully, which infringes upon human rights. 2. Because it's lazy and lacking credibility: it's a claim to being privy to 'the correct path for society' , without showing the ability to create something of value. The state could still tap market forces…

1. A company is not a person. Also, the company did not have to go to jail, it got a fine.

A company belongs to its shareholders. Commandeering it violates the shareholders' rights to their property.

All legal injunctions are predicated on the threat of imprisonment, even fines:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforci...

Re: Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest

#444

Post by scotty79 »

root_axis wrote: post #396
scotty79 wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Platform shouldn't have the right to an opinion on content. > Why? Because if it has that right it should have the full responsibility for everything it publishes. With no leeway. >> Same way that when you open a store you can't pick and choose your customers. > Of course you can, you just can't refuse service based on legally protected classes, that's the exception not the rule. Depends on the local law. For exam…

> Because if it has that right it should have the full responsibility for everything it publishes. With no leeway I don't understand your reasoning. When you say "full responsibility" I assume you mean legal responsibility, as in, a website that removes posts by users should take full legal responsibility if users post illegal content, but I don't see the connection between the two ideas, the illegal content was stil…

> if users post illegal content

If a platform decides to pick and choose then it's no longer a platform. It's a publisher.

It's not the users that post illegal content. Users only send it privately to the publisher and publishers decides to make it publicly available and should bear full legal and moral responsibility for the act of publishing it.

The whole invention of a term platform is so that tech companies can avoid responsibility of publishers.

> it sounds like you're suggesting any site that removes user content should be pushed into shutting down

It can remove user submitted content but only if the laws requires for such content to be removed or if there are technical reasons to do that (content is too large, to popular, too unpopular, some time have passed, etc).

Re: Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest

#445

Post by josefx »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #443
oefnak wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. A company is not a person. Also, the company did not have to go to jail, it got a fine.

A company belongs to its shareholders. Commandeering it violates the shareholders' rights to their property. All legal injunctions are predicated on the threat of imprisonment, even fines: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforci...

> A company belongs to its shareholders.

A company is generally its own legal entity, intentionally separated from its shareholders to protect them from any fallout should the company ever go bankrupt or get sued into oblivion. You can get into serious trouble if you founded a company and failed to correctly distinguish between your own and the companies property, because as far as the government is concerned you explicitly told it to make this distinction.

Re: Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest

#446

Post by codeflow2202 »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #433
throwawayboise wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is as it should be IMO. When you position yourself to be a de-facto public square, you shouldn't get to selectively operate like a private club when it suits you.

If the people want a free-speech-respecting public square, they should petition their state to create one that is compelling enough to become the choice of the majority, not let private citizens do the hard work of creating an effective square, and then use force to commandeer it.

Put limitations to what a private entity can do on national soil is completely in the hands of local governments. If you want to make money here, you follow our rules. Completely free capitalism brings the kind of aberrations that we can already see destroying the livelihood of millions of people in the USA

Re: Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest

#447

Post by CryptoPunk »

josefx wrote: post #445
CryptoPunk wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A company belongs to its shareholders. Commandeering it violates the shareholders' rights to their property. All legal injunctions are predicated on the threat of imprisonment, even fines: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforci...

> A company belongs to its shareholders. A company is generally its own legal entity, intentionally separated from its shareholders to protect them from any fallout should the company ever go bankrupt or get sued into oblivion. You can get into serious trouble if you founded a company and failed to correctly distinguish between your own and the companies property, because as far as the government is concerned you exp…

It's its own legal entity, that is owned by other people.

And there is very little privilege that incorporation grants corporations that is not entirely contractual. Limited liability for shareholders for tort is the only one I can think of, and that, in my opinion, should be repealed.

Limited liability for debt can be entirely contractual in its basis, and established by shareholders/companies operating outside of the corporate structure too, simply by stipulating that condition in any loan agreememt the business enter into with another party.

Re: Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest

#448

Post by CryptoPunk »

codeflow2202 wrote: post #446
CryptoPunk wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the people want a free-speech-respecting public square, they should petition their state to create one that is compelling enough to become the choice of the majority, not let private citizens do the hard work of creating an effective square, and then use force to commandeer it.

Put limitations to what a private entity can do on national soil is completely in the hands of local governments. If you want to make money here, you follow our rules. Completely free capitalism brings the kind of aberrations that we can already see destroying the livelihood of millions of people in the USA

That is abuse of the monopolistic control the state exerts over the land within its jurisdiction. It would be equally abusive if the state used it to prohibit homosexual intercourse, marijuana usage or atheism-promoting speech.

>>Completely free capitalism brings the kind of aberrations that we can already see destroying the livelihood of millions of people in the USA

The idea that the US has "completely free capitalism" is the Big Lie promoted by the state's unionized activist bureaucracy. The US, along with the rest of advanced nations, has rapidly moved away from being a free society with economic liberty, toward one that has a significant amount of centralized control over the private actions of its citizens:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long...

Re: Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest

#449

Post by linspace »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #433
throwawayboise wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is as it should be IMO. When you position yourself to be a de-facto public square, you shouldn't get to selectively operate like a private club when it suits you.

If the people want a free-speech-respecting public square, they should petition their state to create one that is compelling enough to become the choice of the majority, not let private citizens do the hard work of creating an effective square, and then use force to commandeer it.

The clause only affects when the platform is big enough. It's a concentration of power in the hands of a few, certainly not the shareholders as you say in other comment. That such a concentration of power will be abused is almost a law of nature and so laws are put into place, the same way there are laws to prevent monopolies, to the detriment of shareholders also. You may think that this practicalities don't align with your ideology which is fine but as someone living in a country with multiple nation wide and regional state owned television channels I think they are terrible idea because they are extremely inefficient compared with private ones and also degenerate into propaganda machines for the political party in power, and the longer the same party is in power the worse.

Re: Germany fines YouTube for removing video of anti-lockdown protest

#450

Post by eli »

adamdusty wrote: post #393
eli wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it theirs to force them to host content Google wishes to delete?

I don't think it's unreasonable for companies with publicly available communication platforms be required to abide by laws in the countries they make those platforms available in. If youtube decided that they would host videos in germany on an invite only basis, it would be different.

No matter what the law?
Post reply on HN